Well, they're certainly not pulling the punches. To be fair I was very surprised that Apple went with such a low quality screen on the iPad mini, especially when it's noticeably lower quality than the competition (except for the Surface RT, which is even lower still).

Have you actually used a Surface yet? Had one in your hands, done stuff with it, used one for hours?

Just curious, because if you say "Yes, I have" then I'd question whether or not you actually did or were instead using some cheap Chinese KIRF product name Surfus or something because the Surface RT arguably has one of the finest displays ever put into a product of any kind.

There isn't a review out there yet from anybody that has said anything disparaging about the quality of that display so, I'm kinda curious to actually hear your reasoning on why you claim the Surface RT is even worse than the craptastic XGA display in the iPad mini.

It's unfortunate that Apple promoted the idea that the only thing that matters in a good display is the pixel count. There's a lot more to a good display than just the resolution but nobody seems to remember that any more.

If I were competing with Apple on the small tablet, I would certainly be touting the poor quality of the screen especially when compared to others. Amazon is quite correct in their statement. If you want an even worse screen than the iPad Mini, go with an MS Surface.

It's unfortunate that Apple promoted the idea that the only thing that matters in a good display is the pixel count. There's a lot more to a good display than just the resolution but nobody seems to remember that any more.

No doubt, there is more to a good display than the PPI. But it is STILL important when we are talking about reading devices. If I had a choice between reading on a low PPI device versus a high PPI device, it really doesn't matter how much better color contrast or viewing angles the lower PPI device has because the higher PPI device will have better rending. No amount of screen trickery is going to make up for less pixels.

Now, if we are just talking about watching movies and playing games then 200+ ppi devices are going to be about the same as the 120-160ppi devices. Most people buy kindles for reading so Amazon is bringing up a really good point.

If I were competing with Apple on the small tablet, I would certainly be touting the poor quality of the screen especially when compared to others. Amazon is quite correct in their statement. If you want an even worse screen than the iPad Mini, go with an MS Surface.

Spoke like someone that has never used a Surface. I sat next to my friend today who had an iPad 3. Compared to my surface the screen looked dull and washed out, and as far as sharpness is concerned, the difference is not discernible unless you put your face 6 inches from the screen.

Doesnt matter. The mini will still sell like crazy no matter if the facts are out in plain view or not. It's Apple...anything they touch seems to turn to gold. People associate Apple with being the best, And for a while, they were and was great when they were ahead of the competition. Now that the competition is getting greater, Apple really has not changed their strategy much. And why should they. They keep selling their products and making record profits. Will be interested to see how things change/if they change with WP8.

The problem with Mini's screen isn't the pixel count, it's the size. They just went and scaled down the 10" version, ultimately proving Steve Jobs was right with his "sandpapering the finger" comment, because they've effectively just made everything on the screen smaller and harder to use. iOS has a resolution-locked UI, which is definitely turning into a problem, and Apple should have faced this instead of avoiding it. And to think of all the people laughing at Android's fragmentation regarding screen sizes.

To be fair I was very surprised that Apple went with such a low quality screen on the iPad mini, especially when it's noticeably lower quality than the competition (except for the Surface RT, which is even lower still).

i'm not really surprised, that seems to be apple's thing. remember they didn't put the retina display in the iPad 1 right away either.i bet the iPad mini 2 will have the retina display and Apple will claim it's "innovative"

No doubt, there is more to a good display than the PPI. But it is STILL important when we are talking about reading devices. If I had a choice between reading on a low PPI device versus a high PPI device, it really doesn't matter how much better color contrast or viewing angles the lower PPI device has because the higher PPI device will have better rending. No amount of screen trickery is going to make up for less pixels.

Now, if we are just talking about watching movies and playing games then 200+ ppi devices are going to be about the same as the 120-160ppi devices. Most people buy kindles for reading so Amazon is bringing up a really good point.

They're not just reading devices though and I'm willing to bet that most people only use them for reading a small amount of the time. The Kindle Fire wasn't designed as an e-reader, it was designed so Amazon could sell videos and games and that's what most people buy it for. If they want a reading device then people buy the e-Ink Kindle. Besides, you make it sound as if it's impossible to read anything on a screen with a lower PPI when the reality is that the majority of people quite happily spend most of their days in front of low PPI PC monitors.

Screen trickery may not make up for fewer pixels but more pixels won't make up for slow refresh rates, poor contrast, too much reflection, poor colour reproduction, poor viewing angles, etc. The reality is that the focus on PPI is just a p*ssing contest that uses numbers that are easy for foolish customers to understand. It only tells one small part of the story.

What saves Apple is their app store. There is absolutely no doubt that the Apple App Store is the best there is. The apps there are unrivaled by Android. There is simply no equal. As for the iPad Mini - it is way over priced. They should have done better.

Looks like a few Apple fans are giving the Kindle Fire bad reviews on the device store page. I don't know why Amazon lets anyone make reviews. It should be limited to people who ordered it from Amazon. This is why there are so many BS reviews.

They're not just reading devices though and I'm willing to bet that most people only use them for reading a small amount of the time.

Study? Reference? I'd say its just as likely that most people spend their time reading web sites on these small tablets. Going further, I would say that everyone does a little of everything on their tablets. Dismissing reading as an activity that goes on with tablets is pure silliness.

The Kindle Fire wasn't designed as an e-reader, it was designed so Amazon could sell videos and games and that's what most people buy it for. If they want a reading device then people buy the e-Ink Kindle. Besides, you make it sound as if it's impossible to read anything on a screen with a lower PPI when the reality is that the majority of people quite happily spend most of their days in front of low PPI PC monitors.

No I didn't. I said if given the option between a higher PPI and a lower PPI screen most people will go with the higher PPI screen as they will find reading on it easier on the eyes. PC Monitors don't fit into this equation at all and really aren't worth bringing up.

Screen trickery may not make up for fewer pixels but more pixels won't make up for slow refresh rates, poor contrast, too much reflection, poor colour reproduction, poor viewing angles, etc. The reality is that the focus on PPI is just a p*ssing contest that uses numbers that are easy for foolish customers to understand. It only tells one small part of the story.

All those things you are saying are "poor" don't really exist in high PPI (>160ppi) or low PPI (<160ppi) screens on any of these devices (iPad, Kindle Fire, Surface, Nexus, you name it). You are trying to base your argument on some hypothetical crappy device.